So, authors Michael Baigent and Richard Leigh (Hereafter known as 'the boobies') are in the final stages of their copyright infringement lawsuit against Dan Brown (Hereafter known as 'the untouchable'). They filed this lawsuit claiming that Dan Brown borrowed 'architecturally' from their 1982 non-fiction work "The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail". Now, I'm not exactly sure why they feel the need to word it like that... "architecturally"?? What the hell? that's besides the point though. The point is they feel that Dan Brown basically stole some of their most basic and, according to them, 'original' conclusions concerning Jesus and Mary Magdelene.

Ok, first of all, the boobies' book was a work of non-fiction... I'll say it again, it was NON-fiction. They were passing off their conclusions as 'facts'. As a result, their book becomes a historical reference of sorts. You can't, as a rule, copyright a fact. A fact is not something that you can claim ownership of. Just because Einstein was the first to write about the theory of relativity doesn't make him the sole owner and distributor of that fact. In a similar vein, if 'the boobies' pass off their work as fact, then it is perfectly acceptable for another author to use that book as a historical reference.

Second of all, there are no new ideas. The boobies themselves must have referenced other works while researching and writing their book. They don't expect the authors of those works to go around filing lawsuits.

Now, if 'the untouchable' had copied verbatim (or word-for-word) what 'the boobies' had written, then there's grounds for copyright infringement. But he didn't do that.

O ba3dain, 9ij 'the boobies' are ungrateful SOB's. moo kifaya inna Dan Brown made several references to their work in The DVC. He also named one of the main characters after them. Leigh Teabing. Leigh is the last name of one of the authors and Teabing is an anagram of Baigent. How much more recognition do these guys need? Besides, if Dan Brown was really stealing, why would he be so blatant about using their book as a reference? it doesn't make sense.

In my opinion, there are only two logical reasons for this lawsuit:

Possible reason A:

The boobies are jealous. They are jealous and bitter that Dan Brown took their conclusions and placed them in a setting which was accepted and wildly comprehensive. Nobody who read The Da Vinci Code came away going "huh? So, what does that mean?" The story is incredibly, almost miraculously, well written and seamlessly drawn. "The Holy Blood and Holy Grail", which I have read, is a book for academics, historians and extremely patient readers. It doesn't draw you in the way a fictional story does. The boobies, therefore, are bitter that Dan Brown took a complex and 'difficult-to-swallow' subject and made it understandable to the masses. As a result of this jealousy, the boobies now want their share of the pie.

Possible reason B:

Its a scam. The whole lawsuit is a ploy to get The Da Vinci Code back in the limelight in order to generate interest before the May 19th worldwide release of the movie. 'The untouchable' and 'the boobies' are in it together. Meaning, 'the untouchable' has already agreed to pay 'the boobies' X amount of money in exchange for this lawsuit. The money has already been paid or will be paid once the ruling comes through. I have to say, if this is really the reason behind the lawsuit, then its a brilliant publicity tactic on the part of Dan Brown. Nothing raises interest in a story like a lawsuit. Just look at James Fray's "A million little pieces", sales soared after the whole 'fabrication' thing came out. Why? because people are curious. DVC sales are also soaring on the heels of the lawsuit. Now, I don't think there's anyone on the planet who hasn't read The Da Vinci Code, but if they haven't read it, they know about it and now that they know about the lawsuit, they're gonna wanna know what all the fuss is about.

I, personally, think the judge is gonna swing the way of 'the untouchable'. He has to. The lawsuit has absolutely no grounds or justification. Repeat after me. You can't OWN a fact. Literature doesn't work that way. Facts belong to everyone. Mark, Luke, Matthew.. all those guys who wrote the Bible, they don't have sole ownership to the fact that Jesus was a prophet with a mission to do so and so, anymore than the New York Times can claim ownership that an earthquake happened in Iran, just because they were the first to say it.

Dan Brown is a literary genius. People should just accept that and move on.

_________________________________________________________

"A sure sign of a lunatic is that, sooner or later, he brings up the Templars..."

-Layla

08:56